"Earth as a Simulation Series 2: Are we simulated copies of people? How, slowing down technological development in your simulation will get around the potential recursive building sims in a sim glitch problems. However, an accurately simulated population will STILL present specific experiences, despite that the technologies these experiences depend on DON'T YET exist (immersive VR experiences for example). This series presents evidence of anomalous 'missing technology' experiences & evidence of obscuration of these & evidence that the simulation we are in was built in the last few decades."

Main Page Headings List

On the previous page I pointed out yet ANOTHER of the STUPIDLY OBVIOUS impossible to hide visible evidence clues that would indicate that you are not only in a simulation BUT that you are being simulated though the simulation design, building and data collection phase would be ‘IF’ our population here was experiencing having every type of information about themselves that you could possibly imagine being vacuumed up and stored and saved . . .

So, the question you would have to ask yourself ‘IF’ you were a simulation designer would be . . . .

“How would you hide and or disguise what would be a HIGHLY VISIBLE global and personally invasive data collection so that no one in your SIMULATED population would ever link this data collection as being exactly what you would EXPECT if the data for a very accurate SIMULATION project was being collected?”

Well, what you ‘could’ do as a simulation designer is you would HAVE TO THINK of ‘something’ that would JUSTIFY and explain this global scale of personal data collection in ways that DIDN’T IN THE SLIGHTEST EVEN SUGGEST ‘SIMULATION’. What on earth could you substitute that would justify the invasion of everyone’s privacy while having this happening for something as far away as possible from ‘simulation’?

How would a Simulation Designer Hide THE VISIBLE EVIDENCE that we are in a Simulation?

Interestingly, the only possible solution to this problem that I can personally think of that would justify this sort of global and massively invasive personal data collection WHILE keeping it’s real ‘simulation’ project purpose hidden would be if this was being done because of some permanent global scale terrorist threat.

Is there any evidence that this particular ‘keep the original personal and global data collection hidden from your simulated population’ solution has been implemented here?

Personally ‘IF’ I was to THINK like a simulation designer then I might suspect that the ‘terrorist’ threat idea might have actually been used WITHIN THE ORIGINAL POPULATION to help justify the original data collection there too. As a simulation designer I’d also split up and keep contained different elements of this data collection machine into what would appear to be separate components here (for example: Google, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and so on while having the National Simulation Agency surreptitiously stealing acquiring this data by backdoor means . . . ).

This data collection is of course one of the other STRUCTURAL anomalies that would be visible to the population ‘IF’ we are in a simulation project AND which would also be impossible to disappear without LOSING ACCURACY.

You would still absolutely have to have a massive collection of personal data to retain accuracy in your simulation. This would be necessary to ensure that everyone that was impacted by this massive invasion of privacy data collection happening in the original population would be impacted here.

Is there evidence that we are in a simulated reality?

Let me give you some examples of how specific people would have been involved . . .

To have everyone that was employed as part of the original data collection to be involved in this collection of data in the simulated population.

Then you will have people that stored, collated and analyzed the data needing to have their expectations met of them doing this too . . .

Then you have all the people that complained about it in the original population needing to have pretty much the same thing to complain about in the simulated population . . .

At the same time you will have people in the original population that campaigned from the human rights angle or that took stances against the invasion of privacy having their copied simulated counterparts in the simulation campaigning for the same . . .

Basically anyone in the simulation that was simulating someone whom was involved in collecting or handling the data or that specifically reacted against it or complained about it or campaigned against it would have to be accurately simulated as doing the same.

The bottom line is that in any accurately copied simulated population there would be a very obvious and serious attempt to collect all data on everyone globally while keeping the real reason why this was happening obscured from everyone.

I’ll repeat what I’ve pointed out above and on the previous page . . .

It is a BASIC requirement of simulations to require accurate data. As such, you’d imagine that:

EVERYONE questioning our reality and particularly those interested in simulation possibilities should have thought about how you’d get the very accurate data that would be absolutely required to simulate accurate duplicates of your population . . .

They should have then checked to see if a massive data collection was happening here.

You’d particularly imagine that academics and scientists and PARTICULARLY those writing papers about earth as a simulation possibilities would have figured this out and actually looked beyond their research cubby hole to see if such a data collection was ACTUALLY VISIBLY happening here.

So, here I am yet ‘again’ pointing out another stupidly obvious visible ‘we are in a simulation project’ clue which amazingly would only be specifically visible ‘IF’ as a simulation designer you would be taking your simulated population through the design, build and data collection phase AND there is plenty of evidence that the data collection you’d EXPECT for a simulation project is actually visibly happening here.

What would be the best evidence disappearing strategy to use ‘IF’ you were actually simulating a population THROUGH the phase the simulation was built?

11 Comments

NinaNovember 4, 2014 @ 6:35 am

Coincidental spelling error!!!

Personally ‘IF’ I was to THINK like a simulation designer then I might suspect that the ‘terrorist’ (treat) idea might have actually been used WITHIN THE ORIGINAL POPULATION to help justify the original data collection there too.

treat — threat

Strange how the misspelling made me think of terrorism as a “treat” for a few seconds.

And there is always an underbelly of everything touted as “for the public good”

Here in the sim, we see the potential for and the actual abuse of the data collection. Which therefore suggests there was an evil twist to the data collection in the original world as well. Judging from the other signs we are simulating a dystopian society, I would strongly suggests this is true.

And the reasoning from that point leads to an even more terrifying thought: That the evil network or system that twisted that data collection to nefarious purposes is also translated here.

Because it’s a fundamental part of the sim I doubt it would be a “sim tangible data set”, like NSA data.. Rather it’s logical it would be more comprehensive, more subtle, and more evil.

And just like our credit card and other purchasing data is used by marketers to influence our purchases, it’s likely this evil “subtle” data collection would be used to influence at the deepest levels to manipulate our behavior.

I think you might be missing the point. If you are the creator of a simulated universe, you don’t have simulations within it collect the data from other simulations within it. You just observe the data being generated from outside of the simulation. In other words, you run a report.

Mass Surveillance has absolutely nothing to do with Simulated Reality, UNLESS you (as the designer) are trying to study the effect of (simulated) mass surveillance on simulated entities. And even then, as mentioned, as the designer, you have no need of whatever simulated data is ‘collected’ because you exist outside of the simulation and therefore can gather any data about the simulation you like from outside the simulation at any point in time.

Thanks for your comment Ben, what you write is a fantastic example of being cognitively ‘managed’ and being ‘OBSERVABLY’ made to be feebleminded to an extreme. In other words you are a fine example of being unable to grasp the most simplistic of points at all.

To simulate people accurately requires you to acquire the accurate data from your original population to BE ABLE TO ACCURATELY SIMULATE THEM AS COPIES. You’d have a massive data collection and invasion of privacy happening in the original population. Coincidentally in simulating this COPIED POPULATION accurately (because this is why we here actually ‘run’ simulations). Unlike the originator of the simulation argument I’ve actually defined what a simulation is AND also very specifically the configuration that explains many anomalies and artefacts HERE in extreme detail.

So, to run a simulation of a copied population you HAVE TO COLLECT ALL THE DATA ABOUT YOUR POPULATION required for your simulation THEN when your copied population is being simulated through the phase when this data collection actually happened then they will AUTOMATICALLY be simulated as carrying out this data collection happening in the simulation.

A simulation is a ‘MODEL’ built to accurately reflect some ‘original’ system. This is what I am describing. I am NOT describing a reality where people actually have a choice to make any choice they want. This couldn’t then describe a simulation.

In the same way you would NOT run a meteorological simulation without it seriously accurately reflecting the original system because it wouldn’t return accurate weather forecasts would it?

Let me give you a ‘pointed’ example. Let’s say that you were trying to find out how to get your own original population to spend more money or to make yourself or your corporation SERIOUSLY rich (or way richer than they already are in the original population). To do this you’d have to model / simulate your population very, very accurately while ‘testing’ different factors to see what works most efficiently in your model to achieve the outcome you want in your original population. When you have the right combination of factors for the outcome you want in your simulation then you’d apply these factors to the original population.

I’m sorry Ben but I am VERY VERY clear in my descriptions and ‘you’ have been cognitively misdirected. In a simulation that is accurately simulating copied people, there would be so many anomalies EASILY VISIBLE to the simulation population (as I point out on these pages) that the only thing the simulation designers can do to prevent their simulated population from figuring out the obvious is to MAKE THEN FEEBLEMINDED so they are unable to figure out the simplest things or even take in these simple things when they are written about and described in detail . . . .

Your comment is supporting evidence ALL BY ITSELF that we are in the simulation that I have accurately defined and described on these pages.

Hi there, very interesting topic. I have also thought about the possibility of being in a simulated reality although not with all the specific details mentioned here. It is just a “feeling”, a “sensation”. Excuse me if my english is not perfect. I am from Chile, a South American Country, and I am a female. Well, why did I get to that point? It is because I am suposed to be psychic. In the beggining this was kind of fun, cause I could foresee a lot of things, but at the same time it was pissing me off, because I could not see the utility of foreseeing events if I could not do anything to avoid them. I don´t know if I am going to be able to express exactly what I want to express here, but I will try. What pissed me off was that we are supposed to have “free will”, so how come that I was foreseing events that really happened afterwards? I could not make sense of it. For a while I thought that this meant that something or someone was controling the events, or was interested in the events I was foreseeing to really happen, so the info was being sent to me, so I would comment on it with other people about it, to make the “possible” event gather energy and through this get the event to happen. But, if we are in a simulated reality and everything is already planned, then it makes less sense to let the people of the simulated reality know what is about to happen….

On the other hand, if the Real People, making the simulation are in some kind of deep trouble, trying to find ways to get out of them, maybe, and only maybe, having people in the simulation know in advance what is going to happen, and see how do they react or what they do to stop or put some remedy to it, could be useful to them….(just a thought…) Why do I say this? Well, a strange thing happened to me some time ago. While I was doing therapy to a friend (that later became my husband) I got contacted by a being that said to me that he/she (it was androgynous) was our descendant. He/she, was from a very distant future time, and explained to me that they had decided to come back in time because some desicions taken in this time by some people were heavily affecting what was happening to them. So they were trying to see if certain things could be changed for the better. Soooooo, if as you say the creators of the simulation are so advanced technically as to be able to create what you are proposing, it could mean also that maybe, they could time travel to change things and have a better future. Maybe is not about getting more power, or more money but about getting a better future.

Not much of what you write makes sense with respect to what I present as very ‘coherent’ evidence of ourselves specifically being in a simulation here (and the directions it is OBSERVABLY taking us in). You write ‘speculative’ fantasies as a ‘comforting’ misdirection. For example if they could time travel or wanted to use this to get out of the shit they are in then it would likely be way cheaper that putting this simulation together as a start – so that ‘fantasy’ argument doesn’t make sense.

The ‘EAAS’ project was ‘SPUN’ to the original ‘public’ as a therapy project, it was designed and built as a therapy project while being retasked behind the scenes TO DO THE OPPOSITE . . . i.e. the origiinal population were LIED to same as we here are lied to by the so called spiritual hierarchy. in other words it is all based on lies . . . perhaps as a COPIED person you are simulating someone that worked on the EAAS project writing the software to provide misdirecting ‘nicer/comforting’ explanations . . . perhaps you write the software that dealt with ‘forseeing’ events to deliberately make these experiences contradictory? This is much more likely explanation than what you write above.

I have just read what Nina and Wendy say, quite interesting. Maybe, the mistakes they are trying to remedy are just that. The threat terror, and the mass surveillance. Maybe the future of the human race became completely distorted under these two forces, as we are experiencing in our simulated reality, and somebody is trying to find a way out of it…..Let´s hope it is so, ´cause if not, then is the other way around. Somebody is trying to find more effective ways to control the Real Population as you all propose.

You’re quite keen on trying to be ‘positive’ in the FACE of how our reality is OBSERVABLY presenting itself aren’t you? You either view it as it is and think in these terms which may help you become aware of more ‘BEYOND’ what we have already figured out OR you stay in a fantasy!!! Like I’ve described on many of these pages the ‘bias’ here is to promote fantasies and support people to adopt them.

This data collection is of course one of the other STRUCTURAL anomalies that would be visible to the population ‘IF’ we are in a simulation project AND which would also be impossible to disappear without LOSING ACCURACY.

You would still absolutely have to have a massive collection of personal data to retain accuracy in your simulation. This would be necessary to ensure that everyone that was impacted by this massive invasion of privacy data collection happening in the original population would be impacted here.

Previous plans to privatise the organisation met with concern among some in the property industry, with fears that charges could increase and the public could lose free access to some data.

Henry Pryor, a buying agent and property commentator, said he was concerned about how a privatised Land Registry would monetise the records it held. “Who will ensure that your private details won’t be sold on to a third party looking to sell you stone cladding or to pave your driveway?” he said. “Do we really want to rely on the private sector to guard the details of what for most people is their most valuable asset?”

. . .

Andrew Lloyd, managing director of Search Acumen, which uses the Land Registry to verify property ownership for law firms handling purchases, said the process of consultation had to be transparent. “The threat to the register’s integrity when in private hands has been a major source of concern for many in the conveyancing industry, and the consultation is likely to prompt a heated debate,” he said.

Lloyd said the registry had “made huge strides” in commercialising its activities and opening up data on land and property ownership. “Looming privatisation may cast a shadow over these recent developments and the long term plans that Land Registry has already set in motion,” he added.

— So the encoded status quo/ behavior at that time (And so here now) have to “make huge strides” to “open up data” in basically EVERYTHING.

In the original environment, this could even represent/ be a translation for the encoding of land rights registries for each planet in the ‘Galactic commonwealth,’ (or whatever the ‘UK’ is etc) which they would have wanted to collect data on.

It’s just amazing how many ‘weird and different ways’ there are for these things to show up . . .

Likely most (or all?) ‘known’ data sets here are “incomplete” (maybe there’s a few data sets that exist outside this general state of ‘incompleteness’, like the binary code perhaps, but data sets related to people are observably error-prone).

For example, land registries are rife with inaccuracies – which is why “title searches” are a necessary part of the buying and selling of land in developed countries, to make sure that the title is ‘free and clear’ before being transferred to new ownership.

The issues with incomplete data is one reason why blighted areas (ghettos or poverty-stricken neighborhoods, for example) are difficult to remedy, since land records in these blighted areas can be often out of date because of heir properties and other issues. Houses may pass from grandmother to grandnephew, to the grandnephew’s girlfriend and son, to someone who pays cash, with no formal title search or title transfer being done along the way to “clean up” the data. Liens and other issues can further cloud the title. The result is that work to clear the title may cost more than the property itself is worth and thus at some point the house can fall into disrepair and be abandoned, with no economically viable way to be revitalized. A brief look at cloudy titles and their affect on communities is at this link (pdf document).

The reality of “who actually owns the house” or “how the house is used” or “who lives in the house” – squatters’ rights, the human experience, the complexities of multi-generational families etc – is very different from the ‘official’ land registry data set. Additionally, how, when, and where people eat and sleep, what they think about or feel, who interacts with whom and how, is all outside of any ‘official’ data collection here. I don’t observe overt representations of that level of accuracy in data collection of the human experience ‘here’. We can’t even recall our personal information ourselves, and none of us have reliable access to data that occurs outside our own observed inner or outer experiences. Even ‘data’ that feels like it’s from outside our personal space is suspect – e.g., while I often feel emotions or traumas “from other people”, I have no way of checking whether these sensations accurately reflect others’ experiences..

I’m thus skeptical that any “overt” or “obvious” data collection or any ‘known’ data set here- regardless of how intrusive it may feel- represents the true source of data used to create this place.

These ‘overt’ data sets here (like land registries, NSA data, or data warehouses and so forth), and the ensuing discussions about access, security, ownership, accuracy, intrusiveness, etc., while perhaps ‘useful’ to orient us to consider the implications of data, how it’s gathered and secured or not secured, how it affects us (ie, the entangled / cloudy title data can lock away valuable resources – e.g., a house – and traumatize a person by not having a decent home to live in), feels more like a symbolic translation or presentation of ‘issues’ or ‘traumas relating to data and its inaccuracies’ or ‘tools/methods to confine, control, and traumatize’, while the actual ‘true’ data collection methodology is hidden out of awareness.

Perhaps these ‘issues/traumas/containments due to data issues’ were even lines of experiments somehow run in the original space to see the effects of memory wipes/edits (ie, data wipes/edits) or perhaps “life experience parameter” modifications and tests, etc., while the hidden data collection mechanisms whirred away in the background accurately, completely, and unobtrusively capturing people’s reactions to these ‘issues relating to data’.

This feels somewhat analogous to how in the book, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the purpose of the President [intrusive data collection and subsequent complaining] is to distract everyone’s attention from where the ‘real power’ lies [real data collection is happening].

This skepticism I’m presenting here, however, isn’t a dismissal whatsoever of the argument of ‘simulation designers had to hide the data collection’. Rather, it supports and augments the argument. I’m suggesting another level of ‘hiding’ and misdirect – namely that from what I observe happening ‘here’, it feels like the real data collection may have somehow been completely hidden from the original population, and these ‘obvious’ data sets we see represented here may be translations of misdirects and distractions regarding data (perhaps represented as memory, akashic records, etc etc), introduced in the original space to keep people from considering how certain things were even ‘possible’ in the original space and to keep them from considering that perhaps even “everything” in their lives and thinking were being managed and monitored.

?

Click 'Home' top menu on left for a scene setting, introduction page to this site, click 'Nav' above for site Navigation advice, 'Comments' for the latest comments, 'Scary' for pages you must AVOID because they are way, WAY too 'Spiritually' horrifying . .

‘Nav’

Site Navigation & Reading Advice . .

ALLarticle pages, posts and tags on this entire site are listed under the menu link NAV (directly above on the 'right' in the upper main menu) or you can click: Site MAP - HERE.

You are seriously recommended to read all pages in an articles series in order else you'll lose context. At the bottom of every article series page is a NextPage ---> link and then below this link (on most pages) is a menu list of all pages of that specific series.

Clive December 7, 2018 at 4:24 pm on What are Dark Forces & Demons & Why are they Against the Light?Hi Jessica, yea, if you've' a decent scale of 'education/interests' there are clues to all sorts of our duplicated population's simulation here reinforcing sub agenda's/objectives with respect to specific peoples/groups/sub groups that also go way, way back in earth 'history'